Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: If A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words, Then What Do These Memes Say? (Parts VIII & I)
Source:
The Potters Clay
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa6ulv9aQno
Published: Oct 10, 2018
Author: The Potters Clay
Post Date: 2019-10-07 12:02:10 by Liberator
Keywords: Truth, Memes, Hmmm
Views: 46190
Comments: 340
A little Meme action... Poster Comment: Get bored easily? No time to watch long videos? MEMES TO THE RESCUE! Short & Sweet. These are found at a Christian You Tube called, 'The Potters Clay'... These are REALLY good. Fun stuff. I promise. Spectacular AND clever. It doesn't matter what your core belief is; you will come upon several memes that will stop you dead in your tracks and challenge you. (STRONG SUGGESTION: To adjust and slow these memes down, go to your YouTube 'Settings', then adjust 'Playback Speed to .75. It will give you more time to contemplate the meme, since they move along pretty fast.) When you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
If you haven't seen them, checkout the rest!
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part I
https://youtu.be/ptar5YtS_Sk
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth A Thousand Words - Part II
https://youtu.be/FchgUVA4SxE
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part III
https://youtu.be/Kth6X1g7bWk
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part IV
https://youtu.be/eVk3DIwf66c
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part V
https://youtu.be/qJAsGkP99rg
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part VI
https://youtu.be/z2a6g-nfQRU
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part VII
https://youtu.be/9Xsh2LJ1SvY
A Flat Earth Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - Part IX
https://youtu.be/X-D54GbpPjQ
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 204.
#12. To: Liberator (#0)
I watched both. I find them, to varying degrees, flawed. I'm not willing to rehash the science, at least right now. But setting science aside, I'd just speak to the conspiracy factor. If the earth is flat, then it's an absolutely enormous conspiracy going back some 15 generations to perpetuate this round earth lie. And the number of people that would have to be in on it in this day and age is huge. Not just NASA and astronomers, but meteorologists, navigators, and even satellite TV equipment manufactures. Every parent knows how it is, and so does everyone who's ever been a kid. If you tell one lie, you later have to tell another lie to cover up for your first lie. And then a 3rd lie to cover for the second. It goes on and on and eventually the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. If the earth is flat, then the lie about the earth being round amounts to an absolute huge house of cards. Then again, I guess you would counter that the house has collapsed. For you. Fact is though, it's only collapsed for a tiny fraction of people. If you were right, this would have fallen over a very long time ago. And that's even ignoring the question of what perpetuating this round earth theory was ever supposed to achieve in the first place. If it was to marginalize the story of Genesis in the Bible, then they could have done that in any number of other ways that would be safe from being disproved, unlike something so basic as the shape of the earth.
Thanks for checking them out. Some of the memes aren't going to be A+. But some of them are. (Which meme or memes did you find "flawed" btw?) ...Setting science aside, I'd just speak to the conspiracy factor. If the earth is flat, then it's an absolutely enormous conspiracy going back some 15 generations to perpetuate this round earth lie. I think we can both agree that acceptance of Globe Earth was first making headway near the time of Galileo and Copernicus, which would have been @ the 1500s. It was not fully accepted by a consensus until the mid-1800s -- at coincidentally the same time "institutional Science" (controlled by certain Elites with an agenda) was insisting that "Evolution" was fact AND that Dinosaurs were older than Man. By the late 1800s and early 1900s Globe Earth was still being challenged strongly, believe it or not... The is is now a Publisher called, 'Dead Authors Society' that enables one to purchase a plethora of re-released old books. I'd read, 'Terra Firma: The Earth Not A Plane, Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact' (Author: David Wardlaw Scott). It was published in 1903. What especially fascinating about the book and perspective as written is the degree of knowledge about our realm -- even in 1903 -- style of writing, ideological and scientific battles at that time being waged over how our world should be perceived. (I think you and others would find it a great read.) Regarding any difficulty in catapulting any so-called, "Conspiracies" -- well, it's been quite easy. Institutional Science via schools were co-opted, where they *still* manage to convince the public via these secular humanist schools that 'Evolution' and 'Stone Age Man' is indeed a "Fact" -- even though it's been proven impossible. Regarding our realm, Institutional Science and its cabal have simply rigged the system and what they insist are "natural laws" like "gravity", formulas like "the theory of relativity" and one that explains earth "curvature" -- ALL of which not only remain 'theories' but are proven false. The number of people that would have to be in on it in this day and age is huge. Not just NASA and astronomers, but meteorologists, navigators, and even satellite TV equipment manufactures. Right. And many *would* tell you they already *know* the truth of the matter (or risk ostracization and unemployment. *I* can't believe even how much *I* assumed and denied of my own eyes.) Many of those memes can't be denied, btw. There are 8 more Meme Vids that provide further food for thought and additional "scientific" and observational contradictions FWIW. Every parent knows how it is, and so does everyone who's ever been a kid. If you tell one lie, you later have to tell another lie to cover up for your first lie. And then a 3rd lie to cover for the second. It goes on and on and eventually the whole house of cards collapses under its own weight. True. And Globe Earth remain the biggest, clearest case of adulthood Easter Bunny and Santa Claus (besides, 'Evolution, 'Big Bang', and "We from the Gummint and here to help.") If the earth is flat, then the lie about the earth being round amounts to an absolute huge house of cards. Then again, I guess you would counter that the house has collapsed. For you. Fact is though, it's only collapsed for a tiny fraction of people. If you were right, this would have fallen over a very long time ago. Aye-aye on all the above. (Except your last statement; The reason the PTB are freaking out about Flat Earth/NASA is...Knowledge of the truth is growing exponentially...And collapsing like many other things we've been told is "the truth.") And that's even ignoring the question of what perpetuating this round earth theory was ever supposed to achieve in the first place. (The Big Picture: please see my Post #17) If it was to marginalize the story of Genesis in the Bible, then they could have done that in any number of other ways that would be safe from being disproved, unlike something so basic as the shape of the earth. FWIW, besides Genesis, the shape of the Earth is also discussed in Psalms, Job, and Isaiah. But to your premise, multiple civilizations for thousands of years had already presumed its shape not only to be Flat, but having a Dome or Firmament over it. I didn't make that up; That's a fact. Again, "Globe/Ball" earth has only been advanced as a theory since the 1500s, and "fact" only since the mid-1800s.
This is all I see fit to respond to, with I'll do with a simple "of course". Anyone looking over long distances will have the impression the land is flat, with the exception of ships sailing over the horizon which might be mistaken for disappearing in the distant mist. There's no reason ancients living thousands of years ago should be considered a scientific authority. If we don't consider them an authority when they said that all matter could be subcategorized into one of: Earth, Air, Fire & Water, and if they didn't understand even basic things air pressure, bacteria, steam engines and the like, then why would or should they be considered an authority on the shape of the earth?
....and if they didn't understand even basic things air pressure, bacteria, steam engines and the like, then why would or should they be considered an authority on the shape of the earth? Several separate civilizations (or "authorities" of the day) ALL conceptualized similar configurations of our earthly realm as can be seen below. What are the odds?? NONE conceptualized any realm that was remotely a "ball" or globular. These concepts were more accepted even as recently as the 16th century. The elements of the earth are a whole different category. Why should the previous 5,000 years of mankind's knowledge of nature and science be invalidated? They weren't scientifically uneducated and ignorant of technology. In many ways it could be said that they were more advanced and regressed after the Fall of the Roman Empire. What of the Pyramids the world over? All the Chinese and folk herbal remedies and treatment? Roman sewer systems and aqueducts? And so forth. It really wasn't until the mid-19th century and beyond that man began harnessing "high tech" and discoveries on a macro level. Much of the biological by the mid-20th century. Why dismiss and invalidate all past civilizations' scientific credibility, discoveries and truth on the basis of realm concepts? Moreover, hasn't "modern science and tech" had to build on past tested scientific evidence, truths and technologies? "Science" has claimed a "Big Bang" and "Evolution" are "FACT"; Based on what? At the World's museums "Science" claims a "Prehistoric Man" -- that he indeed evolved from Apes. Based on what? Same of the age of fossils and dinosaur bones. Same of both the age of the Universe and alleged near-infinite size. By what criteria does "Science" claim "empirical evidence" in any of these cases? (HAVE those theories been supported by any evidence -- as per "Scientific protocols"? With respect to the actual shape of this earthly realm, I'd mentioned in a prior post that by the turn of the 20th century there was still a big battle raging over the actual shape of the earth. Serious question to you or anyone else: By whose authority, by what criteria IS the earth said to definitively be a "globe"? Because IF it's NASA, they and their credibility is already an ongoing problem and challenge. If it's flight, the horizon is proven to rise as flat -- whether the horizon at ocean level, the horizon at cloud-level, "space" at low-altitude balloon level.
You really are big on that "whose authority?" question, and not just on religious topics. I really don't have the time or inclination to continue on this. Not now. You are wrong on this. I am satisfied that you have chosen to believe the earth is flat, and that the power of that belief overwhelms the physical evidence of a spherical earth that is all around us. So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself. TC posted this vid about the psychological term for describing an inability to accurately understand or comprehend certain subjects. I forget the term. I know I'm terrible at some subjects and good at others. One area I'm good at is math and, as it pertains to the flat earth subject, geometry. If you are not good at spacial comprehension, and it seems you are not, then that's okay. But I can, with full confidence and respect, say to you that you are so very, very wrong in believing the earth is flat. Every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One. The power we have to believe things that are not true is one of the most underrated powers known to man. Almost no one appreciates how true that is. And that truism is one reason why I cannot believe that God would judge us on what we believe, rather, what we do with what we believe. Best to you...
I am. But aren't you as well? After all, on who or what source shall we base "truth"? (or credibility?) You are wrong on this... I could accept your premise -- IF it were based on refutations. But all I ever see is THIS one by you: ...So much in this world wouldn't be as it is if the earth was flat, like flying from Chile to New Zealand in 13 hours at commercial jet speeds. That is such a basic piece of evidence that blows flat earth out of the water all by itself. It does no such thing. It's been this very same citation of flight times from Chile to New Zealand I keep seeing as THE prima facia "evidence" and a guarantee by you as well as Flat Earth opponents by search engines that our realm is a "Globe." Strange.) It is on this one basis ALL other evidence to the contrary should be dismissed?? Meanwhile, I've lost count of what must be hundreds of pieces of evidences I've submitted that prove the earth is NOT a "GLOBE," and still you claim, "every single argument for a flat earth falls flat on its face. Every. Single. One." Why engage in cognitive absolutism without examining the tangible, provable data, science, observations, and facts? Please refute ANY of the memes. Just one. One area I'm good at is math and, as it pertains to the flat earth subject, geometry. Alrighty then. Great! Then explain the following geometric out- of-the-way paths this (below). It is said that Santiago-Sydney flights (close to your examples of Chile to New Zealand, right?) go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map. Curious geometry: (200 Proofs The Earth Is Not A Spinning Ball)
The nearest airport to Sydney is Kingsford Smith Airport (SYD) and the nearest airport to Santiago is Arturo Merino Benitez Airport (SCL). Your flat earth map says Sydney to Santiago is 25,400km (15,782 nautical miles or 18149 statutory miles). According to round earth maps, the distance is 11,340km (6,250 nautical miles or 7053 statutory miles). According to this page, Quantas and LAN Airlines both declare the flight time is 12.5 hours duration. You can find other sites that go as high as 14 hours but the general range is established. Typical estimates for modern intercontinental airlines is 500mph with some a little faster or slower. The regularly scheduled non-stop Qantas flights are QF27 and QF28 (eastbound and westbound) and these are daily flights advertised as 12.5 hours flight time. You can verify flight prices and times and duration and live flight status of Qantas QF27 and QF28 flights by referring to these flight route numbers in any search engine. So a trip from Santiago to Sydney on Flat Earth Airlines (15,782 miles) would normally require the airliner to fly for 31.5 hours @ 500mph, in keeping with your Flat estimate . For Flat Earth Airlines plane to make that trip in just 12.5 hours, it would have to fly almost 1300mph. However, if you fly on Round Earth Airlines between those two cities - a distance of 6,250 miles - it will take you . . . exactly 12.5 hours. Just as the airlines have advertised for years. Keep in mind that airlines advertise 14 hours but they include at least a half-hour at both departure and arrival for airport delays, boarding, etc. The flight time is always less than what the airlines advertise. Also, some of these sites confuse nautical miles for statute miles so keep that in mind when you make calculations and make sure you know which number the airline is using. Airlines also have extra prep time for very long flights over the oceans and crew layover times that can affect the advertised flight time. Expedia: Santiago to Sydney non-stop flights Well, I'm kinda meandering here a bit. Let me just point out something: there can be no non-stop flights whatsoever between Sydney and Santiago using Boeing/Airbus airliners. They would fall into the ocean with empty fuel tanks if they tried to make a 25,400km flight. Aerospace-Technology.com: The top 10 longest range airliners in the world I could go on at length but I really don't want to contribute to making the world a stupider place.
The question of proof to the skeptic fascinates me, whatever the subject. So, let me ask you something. If I put you in the cockpit of a long-range airc aircraft. Say, flying due north from New York. So you could look out the fron front window the whole time and see the instruments, and gave you detailed flig flight map so you could follow along the route with your finger. Every few hour hours we would land to let you rest/sleep, etc., so that you always knew where you you w you you were in fixed reference to the ground. Then we took back off and continued the the the the route, flying over the north pole, then across through Russia, and down the othe oth othe other side of the world, map in hand, stopping to sleep. Then up again, over the th the the South Pole, and back up this side of the world to New York, would you then beli b beli believe that the world was round? What about if we went up further, into space, and you watched the world turn be below you, would you believe it then? What would it take to convince you to believe that the world really is round?
I always wonder if kooks would abandon their multiple kook theories if you thoroughly disproved their major kook theory. I think they wouldn't. Being a CT nutjob or full-blown multi-kook is a mental habit and deep-set personality characteristic. If you disprove one kookery, they'll just find another one. But then, I've never been able to put it to the test thoroughly. Which is what you are proposing.
I don't care about the "kook" label. I've heard many epithets hurled at me be because of things that I know that I cannot prove to others because I have no me means to do so. I am fascinated by adamant deniers - of God, for example - or, in this case, of the the spheroidal nature o the the spheroidal nature of the Earth. It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Ea Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Ea Earth is, in fact, a spheroid. I'm pretty sure that no amount of book waving for finger-wagging would do it, just a just as no amo just a just as no amount of that has ever been able to convince me of a single thing concer concerning Go concer concerning God and his existence. I required independent, empirical evidence of the of the sort of the of the sort that I would accept. Nobody provided me that, or tried, but God did. did. So I did. did. So I know there's God, because I know God. Since that time, others have vehemently wagged fingers and books at me telling me t me that I me t me that I DON'T know God, that I am delusional, etc., but I just laugh inside at t at them a at t at them and feel a little bit sorry for them, for reasons I needn't further elab elaborate. I've thought about it. I think the world is round because I don't see any pa particular reason to question it. I've sailed the world around, northern and so southern hemispheres, seen that the stars are different down under, seen what lo looks to me like a curved earth, watched ships rise out of the sea on one ho horizon and sink into the sea on the other. That this is because the earth is cu cur cu curved makes sense to me. The notion that there is a giant conspiracy...about AN AN AN ANYTHING...always sounds nutty to me, and makes me wonder why the person ch chooses to reject things that they reject. Still, it doesn't BOTHER me that people think the earth is flat. Heresy doesn't provoke any ire in me.
I would not say it makes me angry either. I've repeatedly said we are all challenged with certain deficiencies. The only thing that does irritate me in this and similar cases is when someone who doesn't understand something purports to do so while completely walling off what I consider basic logic. I guess it's when the time and effort I expend to debate and, what I would consider "enlighten" simply goes absolutely nowhere. That is when it becomes frustrating. I'm sure what I've just said is just as applicable to the my opposition as it is me on whatever subject. Many Christians say there is not enough faith in the world. I say the opposite. There's too much faith in the world. Faith in things that are simply not true. Our capacity to believe things is grossly underestimated and unappreciated.
For years and years you claimed to be a Christian. What is it that changed your mind? Or were you never really a Christian and you just said that because you were raised with Christians or something like that? Or you just said it without thinking about what it was? Seriously what changed your mind to believe in someone who suggests things to people while they are in a trance like state?
Tell me, Stone, how do you/we qualify a "real Christian"? How do you quantify what constitutes "real" belief? What does it really mean to "believe"? Vicomte13 just posted a bit about the meaning of the term concluding the difference with the term "faith" meaning "trust" more than "belief". I do not know about the tech defs of terms between languages. That's not my area, but I do concur that "belief", if it is to be on par with "head knowledge", regardless of whether the knowledge is correct or not, is not something that God cares about. The pseud-documentary called "The Secret", espouses a "Law of Attraction", which claims that whatever attitude you have in your heart is what will come to fruition in your life, whether good or bad. Leaving aside the question of how true that is (I think it is credible) I do think that describes what faith really is. It's not clenching your fists with your eyes shut trying to force your brain cells into aligning with a certain intellectual understanding, kinda like the child's fable story entitled "The Little Engine That Could" which I think we all know (a story that sure, is applicable for accomplishing challenging physical tasks) but it simply not applicable when it comes to understanding God. No, when it comes to God, understanding or acknowledging the truth doesn't come forcefully. It comes from being open minded, which you are not. You proved it by your prior post about how debating the question of 7+8=9 is a waste of time. In the same way, in your mind, debating the age of the earth is similarly a waste of time. You don't care why I and a great many people think it's far older. Unlike you, I am open minded. I always have been, even while I claimed to be a Christian. And my open minded nature allowed me to explore beyond the Bible. As a matter of theology, I subsequently found Michael Newton's work very credible. It fully qualified God as having all the patience the Bible talks about him having, in spite of the Bible's overall claim of the end of human life being the time when God's patience runs out. I find the theology of sin to be rather "messy" and always have, even while a Christian. Messy because sin must be done with intent, and intent is simply not qualifiable in many cases, particularly with very young children. Our comprehension of right and wrong varies abstractly. Under Newton, one's actual theological understanding of God isn't important. This solves the problem of God condemning people to hell for all eternity because of their sinful nature in spite of the fact that they may never had any opportunity to even hear about this one theological message about Jesus dying for our sins even though "Jesus" a name we are not spelling or pronouncing correctly as we have the wrong language. (But somehow, God knows who we mean anyway, right, so He allows us that leeway but not any other kind of leeway?) Sure you have your explanation about how it's okay for God to condemn people -- or allow them to condemn themselves. I, on the other hand, have an explanation for how that doesn't happen at all. If "faith" is indeed not mere head knowledge, but rather expresses actual trust, then I think I can say that I have faith that God doesn't act this way with non-Christians, and will not act that way with me. I will point out, as I have before, that over 90% of what Christianity teaches is compatible with Michael Newton's findings. Namely in terms of loving others, the Golden Rule, putting others first before yourself, loving your enemies, embellishing virtues and quashing vices. All of that is 100% the same. The only thing different is the theology of sin (though even there, there is some overlap), a final judgment after one life, the idea that our humanity is modeled after God, and of course, the question of how many times a soul can incarnate into a human body. And yes, I think it is accurate to say that Christianity does espouse that we did incarnate when soul merged with the human body. The difference is that Christianity says this can only happen once, while according to Newton, it can happen multiple times. In that light, "reincarnation" is not such a far-fetched theology. Michael Newton makes more theological sense. At least to me. Everything falls in place with this model. Contemporary accounts which are easy to find claim past life experiences, and the one account I've posted of several times of the young boy recalling being a pilot that was shot down and killed in WW2 being exceptionally compelling as he allegedly was even able to recall shipmate names at a veteran reunion. Sure you write that off as demons, but then again, you're close minded. You won't listen to any arguments that contradict the Bible, just as Liberator won't, it seems, listen to any arguments that the earth is round. I may not be a Christian, Stone, but it doesn't mean I don't have faith. God is better than anything you or I can possibly imagine. You may agree with that statement superficially, and yet you nonetheless still keep God in a box, not allowing him to be anything more than what the Bible depicts. You think that under God's watch and in accordance to a design that He signed off on, the vast majority of his children will end up burning in hell for all eternity. I say, God is better than that. And under Newton, God IS better than that. Our path is more than a single lifetime. Why shouldn't it be? And I have found what I believe to be validation in my own life that I have had past lives. No, not lives I can remember consciously, but experiences in past lives that would explain certain fears I've had in this life, and fears I am overcoming. Our journey is far longer, far more sophisticated, far deeper than a single lifetime could possibly offer. It all makes more sense.
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit. That's basically it.
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian. Edit: Spelling that out, it's because all souls are born of God. It is that reason why we are considered children of God. It has nothing to do with our humanity (which is why evolution doesn't matter). What matters is our origins as souls, and all of us, as souls, originated from God.
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit. However, that human spirit does not function the way it should, and that person experiences emptiness, which then causes that person to seek to fill the void, so to speak. That person will seek and try many things to fill the emptiness, but nothing ever truly satisfies. Oh, maybe for a little while that person will find excitement, relationships, possessions, ect. but in the end, they are still empty. However, when God's Spirit enters in, the human spirit becomes as it was intended, alive and in communion/fellowship with God. We have been created for this very reason, to have inward fellowship with God. If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
You illustrate the paradigm difference between conventional Christian belief and the Newton model I subscribe to. Not just Christian belief but also Judaism and Islam. All 3 of these faiths tend to phrase it as though the soul or spirit is an add-on to the physical body. A person is born "with" a human spirit. This expression implies the physical body is the primary identity of the person, of who and what we are, with the soul being a lessor component thrown in as a bonus. Under Newton, however, the soul **IS** the person, with the human body being the "add-on". It is the soul that defines the vast majority of our personal identity and even personality. Modern science has discovered DNA which has been accepted and presumed to be the defining element of all that we are, shaping our personality, favorite colors, virtues and vices. Under Newton, some qualities are indeed defined by our human structure, sexual preferences being one, but most of what we are is defined at the soul level. We are hybrid entities, mostly soul/spirit, but with a lessor human component, which would include capabilities of the human mind. The human body can be compared to a temporary rental unit instead of something that we own "for life" for the soul, and a rental unit that, once it stops working is disposed of and can be replaced at a future time. Stated another way, we do not say that shoes have feet, gloves have hands, or that hats have heads. We say feet have shoes, hands have gloves and so on. Saying a body has a soul is the same as the former when in fact it is a soul that may or may not have, or wear, a body. Certainly this is why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with evolution. Given the assumption that our DNA defines our full identity, it follows that if we are descended from apes, that apes define our origins. Under Newton, that is not a problem as our human nature is only incidental and does not define our true origins as souls. Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth. Fundamental Christianity, on the other hand, because it maintains our uniqueness revolves around human nature as being special and unique above all other life forms, has to impart something spiritually unique about the human body, about our DNA that other animals do not possess. It must rely on our humanity reflecting the "image of God", which is often inferred to be the human body itself. Under Newton, that's not the case at all. We incarnate into human form because the human body allows for social interaction which permits all manner of spiritual lessons to be learned. If intelligent life exists on other planets, we could just as easily incarnate into alien bodies for the same purpose. The human race is not who we are. It's what we use, and in spiritual terms is completely disposable, as is planet earth itself. I won't attempt to explain why emotions are experienced as it is something that can't be quantified, but I will say that any emotions associated with a certain religious faith do not necessarily validate the theology of that faith.
We incarnate into human form... So there is a God in the Newton model. What role does God play in your incarnation into human form? Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence? If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"? It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
In Newton's books, the actual term that is frequently cited for God is "The Source". My impression is that is the term repeatedly selected by clients to describe God but I won't swear to it. Obviously as an English, human term, it's definition is likely incomplete as, of course, English is certainly not the language of the spirit world. Rather, clients under hypnosis are using English to describe memories they are recalling of the spirit world. I'm sure you can empathize with that sort of issue in comparing English to Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible. I'm not sure where you are going with that question, but it seems a very deep question and I'm not really inclined to recite the whole book. If you are asking about whether our purpose in life is all centered around God or centered around ourselves, I'd probably say it's centered around everyone, including God, and including ourselves. As we grow, all around us also benefit, so it's not like it's even possible to grow in a self-centered way that doesn't benefit everyone. Consider an analogy to be the average family. The life of parents in a healthy family are pretty much centered around the children, in helping them grow and learn wisdom and knowledge. Why then would it, should it, be different between us and God? The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate. If God created us "in His image", which is one biblical description I agree with and which I think is largely how things work in the Newton model, then to say we are nothing is inaccurate. We are special. Not because God arbitrarily decided that we were special. We are special because we, as souls, were born of God. We are special because of our origin and nature. And that has absolutely nothing to do with human DNA or evolution or anything having to do with planet earth.
When I look into the clear night sky I see mass (stars, planets, whatever) and wonder, how did this get here? When I try to look beyond the stars, I wonder, where does this end? I try to imagine what is beyond what I can see, and then what is beyond that, and what is beyond that! And I realize I am looking into infinity...and my brain bogs down. (Try it some time) My brain can't deal with something that has no end because I am a finite creature trying to comprehend the infinite. So my point is this: God is EVEN BIGGER than the infinite universe! He made the universe! Merely by speaking it into existence. Out of nothing. So when the Bible says we are as nothing compared to God...we understand that we are indeed "as nothing". Dust. The unsurpassed beauty of Christianity is that we know a God Who, although is All-powerful, All-knowing, Self-existent(Try to comprehend that), has condescended to not only dwell among us, but to actually serve us, and make a way for us to live with Him forever. That, Ping, is the love of God... God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
I can empathize with much of what you say. But I don't see the connect with your final statement. Neither term, "God" or "The Source", can adequately describe all God is. And this conversation isn't about describing all that he is. It's about how life works. You subscribe to a theology written many thousands of years ago, ascribing some divine truthful authority for it. I, on the other hand, subscribe to a more basic & human explanation for Biblical origins. You admit the universe is incomprehensibly large, and yet maintain it is comprehensibly young. I consider the universe both incomprehensibly large and incomprehensibly old. You insist biological life is too miraculous for any explanation other than divine creation to explain it. I say divine creation does not necessarily exclude utilizing evolution. You suggest God is infinitely more than what we can imagine (true) and yet would create a system that would see so many perish for all eternity simply for not understanding or believing a certain theology. I ask why it is God would make understanding a theology, which is something serviced by the human mind, a condition to enjoying eternal life when even mortal parents would not approve of condemning their own kids to death for not understanding, say, basic mathematics. But your final statement implies that you know me, and you really don't. You base the claim on my academic understanding. I think God is better than that. He really has to be, and the Newton model essentially removes limits on God that Biblical Christianity has in place. It works better in every way I can see. If God condemns me for all eternity because of my theological understanding, then He'll condemn me for being an honest man. If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
I can tell you that there is no injustice whatsoever in God. If there were He would not be God. God is not capable of any wrong or imperfection. When He deals with mankind, including you, it is with perfect justice, perfect love, etc. Understanding is not the basis of Christian theology...it is by faith that God finds us acceptable. Child like faith no bigger that a mustard seed. Not everyone can "understand" because that requires mental capacity, but the capacity to have faith is found in everyone. When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross. You say I don't know you, true, but I know human nature. We are all pretty much the same. We all share the same fallen condition. We all need our Creator, to speak to us, to love us and accept us as we are, to restore us to beings that are fit for that eternal life for which we crave.
That is interesting. If corrupt Eve hadn't tempted Adam to eat an apple from the one magical tree in all of creation that could instantly confer on the eater the ability to discern good from evil, primarily by revealing to the eater their own nakedness, it does lead to other questions. If Eve ate the apple first, then she had to know she was naked. Why didn't she go hide her nakedness from Adam? Instead she boldly and cunningly approached him, trying to make him Fall as well. That bitch. And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc. And no one ever has explained why God, with his perfect foreknowledge of future events that leads to prophecies that come true, failed to foresee that the snake would tempt Eve and then use her as a Vessel Of Evil to cause Adam's fall. Why didn't God see this coming? Why didn't God protect his creation from Satan's plan to thwart God's entire plan of pure and innocent creation with a couple of apples, a snake and a weak woman? Why wasn't God omniscient back in the days of Eden? Why was God lacking in foreknowledge that Satan would attempt to destroy the very nature of God's creation?
Here's the kicker on this, as I see it. Cause here's the thing. Reincarnation is not in the least bit a new theological concept. It actually predates Christianity itself, and is built in to Hinduism and Buddhism. It's even referenced, I believe, in the Bible as one of Paul's letters seems to discount reincarnation with a line about it being appointed to man "once to die" and after that, the judgment. So in my musings, I've wondered why, if the Newton model is correct, it does not exist as a mainstream faith as the "big 5" do (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism). And the answer I come up with is because there is no mandate built into the Newton model that the belief be spread. Christianity has that in the form of a fear of eternal damnation, so believers are energized with the urgency of teaching others the faith. Can't speak for Islam but in at least some versions of it, if you don't believe you get your head chopped off so that's another energizing factor for the faith. With the Newton model, there is no such mandate to convince others of anything because their is no consequence for not believing the Newton model. Ergo, I postulate that if Christianity did not include the doctrine of Jesus being the son of God, and the necessity of believing in sin being washed away by his blood shed on the cross with a final judgment.... then Christianity would not exist today because people thousands of years ago would not have had any drive to spread the gospel. Not to others, and not to their children.
Which brings me to another question...where is this reincarnation taking you? The "spiritual lessons" you learn each time you reincarnate, do they have some end where you reach perfection? How many times must you repeat life before you get it right...then what? Have you ever watched anyone die? Do you not feel that the act of dying would be painful enough to learn almost every spiritual lesson there is to learn?
Eventually we progress to the point where further trips to the gymnasium called earth is of minimal value, and we stop incarnating, continuing our growth in the spirit realm. Yes, I have. Absolutely not. Not in the least. Not even close. While our approach to death can be terrifying, even to the point of leaving some scars in the form of phobias on subsequent lives (fear of heights, claustrophobia and such), my perception is that exiting this life and returning to the spirit world is so wonderful that it easily would qualify as the happiest day of anyone's life. There was one woman who had a near death experience, or claims to, a Dr. Mary Neal, I think her name is. She drowned in a kayak accident and was underwater for maybe 15 minutes or more. She claims an experience quite compatible with Newton's findings, and was so elated upon death she didn't want to come back. At all. And that in spite of having 4 young children in her care. I recall her interview in which she answered a question as to why she took so many years to write of her experience, and one reason she gave was because she was ashamed. Ashamed that she didn't want to come back in spite of having 4 children that needed and depended on her. It was a sentiment that wasn't even in the least bit negotiable, as what she experienced in her NDE was simply that overwhelming. And it seems she was in every way a very good and loving mother. This woman comes across as very intelligent (she is a medical doctor) and speaks very objectively of her experience. Though I will add in all fairness that she considers her experience to be a validation of Christianity. That in spite of my take on her descriptions as being 100% compatible with Newton. That's a bit of an aside, but the point remains, that death itself is a wonderful thing. While in the Christian model is it a permanent departure and certainly invokes lots of sadness, under the Newton model, it's simply the end of one chapter in the very long book of the story of one soul's total experience in earthly life. Death does not mark an exit from human life from which we never return. In the words of a certain terminator robot, the expression "I'll be back" could certainly be fitting for someone's dying breath.
I've had dreams that were just as real (if not more so) than she experienced in her unconscious state, her NDE as you say. I don't think her experience has anything to do with Christianity. We are dead when the spirit leaves the body...and the spirit does not come back. The human spirit either goes to be with Christ, or the spirit goes into Hades, the fiery holding tank for unbelieving humans, to await the final judgement. With so much returning to the earth (6000 divided by 70 = 85.7 potential reincarnations) we are not seeing ANY sign of human progression toward perfection. In fact, just the opposite. What we ARE seeing is what the Bible describes: Look at that passage closely, Ping. You know its true!
But when have human beings ever been anything else? History reveals that is the fundamental nature of mankind. Even the bible says we're children of the devil and never want to do anything righteous. Everything we find in our recorded history is more of the same things that Paul is complaining about to Timothy, sometimes a little worse or a little better but fundamentally the same as far as human conduct. Exactly where in human history is this era of the Good Old Days that is the baseline to which we should compare all human life? Name a year or a century and a place where these Good Old Days existed. Give some examples of historical eras and locales where mankind was any different than what Paul was complaining about. It sounds a lot like some old guy pining for The Good Old Days. And Paul was an old dude when he wrote this to Timothy. Doesn't it sound like the lament of an old man, staring at approaching death, and regretting his choices and the choices of others outside his control? Normally, when we hear people speak of the Good Old Days, we find those Good Old Days were just the same as the present. The people speaking were just younger and more naive or at least more filled with hope for the future. Now get off my lawn, punk. LOL
Yeah, it does. And given the transparent falsehood of that statement, it should be an alarm bell for everybody reading it that this book is full of hyperbole and colorful speech that CANNOT be taken literally word-for-word.
I was disappointed that no one read my mega-post on the Jefferson bible (and my own sleuthing about the possible use of a Baskerville KJV). Jefferson was an interesting Founder, a real Enlightenment kind of guy. Like you, Jefferson focused on the words and moral teachings of Jesus. Like you, he disliked Paul, rather intensely. Like you, he was a church of one and considered himself alone in his beliefs despite being very much a Unitarian most of his adult life. I thought the parallels were interesting. But you like the accounts of miracles in the Gospels and like relics like the Shroud even more. And Jefferson rejected most of them. Anyway, it is an interesting exercise, to see what Jefferson created with a razor and a glue pot over the course of a few nights cutting and pasting bits of a couple KJV bibles and a copy of a Greek and French and Latin bible. You have to wonder what other people might create if they chose to engage in a similar exercise. It does highlight what a person actually believes the real message of the bible is, at least to them. Maybe you should consider publishing the Vicomte bible. I'm sure it would be a big hit down at the rectory. : )
Hey, I AM reading it, in pieces, keep going back to it. I'd love to discuss it piece by piece. For example, far from disliking Paul, I love Paul. He's the most human of the writers. I get him. I dislike what Christians do with Paul, making HIM God and dethroning Jesus. That pisses me off because it's so ridiculous. I am natively a pantheist. I accept that there is a THINKING God because he talks to me, and reversed my own paralysis at a moment when death was certain - a true miracle - and raised two very dead animals back to life in my very dead hands, because I asked him. I cannot DENY the existence of an intelligent God, because I know him directly. I ask him for things, and he tells me no, or ignores me. Other times, I get what I want, in time. So, God IS and I know it. How God relates to the religions - well, my inclination there is to dismiss the religions as human politics, unless God indicated one. He hasn't told me "That one", but one of the religions DOES have miracles that are real (or seem to be) and that religion just happens to be the one that I was born into - which could be a case of bias, or it could be because if God was going to treat me special with contact, etc., he would of course cause me to be born into the one real religion, so that others would not be led astray if I started talking about my experiences with me and hearers started to believe me. If I published something, it would be called "Just God", and it would be my already existing "Harmony of the Gospels plus", with the mechanically, concordantly translated text, and the Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew right there. For the Old Testament, it would just be the red-letter/purple letter/golden letter words of Elohiym, YHWH, El Elyon etc. And there would be a synthesis of the legal texts, a "Restatement of the Torah" as it were, that would draw together the various legal strings and reduce it to the blackletter law, and the observation that every other thing that God said in the Old Testament, and most of what Jesus said in the new, went right back to those specific black-letter laws of YHWH, It would be a ton of work, though, and people would just shit on me after all of that effort, so why do it? Wouldn't accomplish anything. To actually change people's minds, you need miracles. God knows that, which is why he never taught anybody anything new, and never gave any laws, without a bunch of accompanying miracles seen by multitudes. God knows people, which is why Jesus said that if people come with doctrines, like he was, "You should by no means be believing unless you see signs..." Of course, that doesn't mean what it SEEMS to mean. He's not giving a commandment, he's observing human nature, but it's just like the "poor in spirit" - a class of creature that Jesus never spoke of - what HE said was "Happy in spirit are the poor", but the Greek writer lined up the beatitudes using alliteration, and thus we get "Blessed are the poor in spirit", creating a new creature - the "poor-in-spirit" by literary device, and touching off endless arguments that weary my soul.
It would be a ton of work, though, and people would just shit on me after all of that effort, so why do it? Wouldn't accomplish anything. Maybe not. But maybe it would. Maybe it would be worthwhile. The only way to know would be to do it. And most great things that people have done were done without a lot of hope that they could change the world. But some of them succeeded far beyond their wildest dreams. Set yourself a timetable to complete it. A week of working spare evening hours. Or a month. Then show it to someone you trust. Hey, the family's away so you don't have many social obligations at present... You might be surprised if you approached it as a "what the bible really says to me as a 21st century educated Catholic". Who knows, you could gain a following even. Maybe you could become a big televangelist. Is it too soon to speak of...dare I say it...Pope Victor III? LOL Who says miracles can no longer happen anyway? I hate to say it but the words "mechanical translation", while more technically possible now than ever, just sounds awful to me. But you know what? Maybe that's why you should do it.
Family's away, but the old homeless guy I have taken in to use the space left open in their absence is very talkative, and has a lot of pain in his heart that he needs to express to somebody, so I find myself going to bed fairly late after listening. Also, I think it's rude to just leave somebody upstairs alone and go sit at the computer. Mechanical translation is NECESSARY to remove translator's bias. Wherever an Aramaic, or Hebrew, or Greek word appears, that word must be carefully defined and world-listed, and then THAT ENGLISH WORD be used used EVERY SINGLE TIME that the foreign word appears. Of course you conjugate the nouns and decline the verbs. but you must be absolutely consistent - MECHANICALLY consistent, like a computer, so that all of those places where the theological bias of the translator creeps in. For example, either the word "skies" or the word "heavens" will appear in the translation, but not both words, and the word "breath", or "wind" or "spirit", but the translator does not get to pick when a word "means" "skies", or "means" "Heaven", or "means" breath, or "means" wind or spirit. The simplicity of the vocabulary used will remove the layer of distinction that isn't in the original text. Because the word lists are clear, somebody can always simply mass replace one word with another, but the point is that the words are the words, and the translator doesn't get any choices - to make something theological. "In origin was the word and the word was with the divine and divine was the word." The root of "theos" is "heaven" or "bright sky", across many languages - thus, the association of "the divine" with the sky itself (which in the greek is "ouranos" - uranus - which of course was also the name of the original sky god who, with gaae (the earth mother) fathered the original gods. The Hebrew words for God move around "el" (or "al", depending on pronunciation), which is "mighty one" and is drawn (and called) as a bull's head (the letter "Aleph"). Christians place too much weight on that word "God", because it's not a defined term in either testament, but comes from words in the underlying language that refer to something. In Hebrew, the word simply means "power", in Greek root, it derives from "bright sky", and means "divine". Now, a non-mechanical reader with a theological agenda will positively scream that I am "twisting the Scripture", but actually, I am saying what the word really IS, what the words really ARE - if "the heaven" inspired them (the mandate of the sky, so to speak) - perhaps the heaven was revealing its nature in that choice of word. But that's not what theological Jews or Christians want - no, they're quite sure of what "God" is, even though nobody told them but their tradition. I'm not revising anything. I'm writing the words in their actual meaning. That those words really make firm theological beliefs fuzzy is a weakness of the theological beliefs - the words just are what they are. "But, but, you're DELIBERATELY making fuzzy what is clear!" No, I'm deliberately using the clear words to demonstrate that the theology you and your people have believed for thousands of years is ITSELF fuzzy and inexact, and all of the logical exactitude you've built up over the years is built on a fuzzy foundation of states. "God" is the bright sky - the mandate of heaven, as the Chinese would put it. "God" is the POWER that just exists, it just is. And it's plural in Hebrew. In the beginning "THE POWERS THAT BE" made the land and the sky. The Christians go ballistic. But they can't kill any longer, because back in the day, they DID kill, and fatally wounded their own religion such that people pulled its fangs out and deprived it of POWER, so now it can just bark while the caravan passes. People don't like mechanical things, and they don't like roots, because it puts a torpedo under the keel of firm beliefs and makes you realize that the ancients were dealing with concepts, not simple-minded things. And yet, the bright sky TALKS. It did to ME. Nobody cares about THAT, but THAT is what makes what I have to say more interesting, to the discerning person. Why the hell do I care what Pope Sixtus the Seventh said? Did God talk to him? He never said so. Why, then, does HE matter, what does HE know? On the other hand, Jesus spoke to God, and as God, and Amos quoted God whom others could not see (and they hated both of them for it too). I'm interested in what God had to say, not what men had to say. And anyway, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the god and the word was divine" is not actually spoken by Jesus or God anyway, that's John. So that whole statement, in both testaments, would not be in my set of scriptures to examine in the first place. Those are theological conclusions of the writer. I'm interested in what GOD said. I'll decide what that means. Moses and John, respectively, are credited with writing some memorable prefaces, but they are, after all, prefaces by Moses and John, or somebody. They don't say "God said" - what God, or Jesus, SAID is always indicted by "God said..." or "Jesus said..." And that's what I'M interested in. But I've already read that stuff and thought about it. Others, when I mention it, spend so much time objecting to my method that they don't ever get to the words, so why should I devote my own precious time to carefully (and it all has to be SO CAREFUL) put down words they're going to disregard anyway? Why FIGHT with the Whigs in 1870, or the American Communist Party today? They're moribund.
"In origin was the word and the word was with the divine and divine was the word." The root of "theos" is "heaven" or "bright sky", across many languages - thus, the association of "the divine" with the sky itself (which in the greek is "ouranos" - uranus - which of course was also the name of the original sky god who, with gaae (the earth mother) fathered the original gods. The Hebrew words for God move around "el" (or "al", depending on pronunciation), which is "mighty one" and is drawn (and called) as a bull's head (the letter "Aleph"). Christians place too much weight on that word "God", because it's not a defined term in either testament, but comes from words in the underlying language that refer to something. In Hebrew, the word simply means "power", in Greek root, it derives from "bright sky", and means "divine". Now, a non-mechanical reader with a theological agenda will positively scream that I am "twisting the Scripture", but actually, I am saying what the word really IS, what the words really ARE - if "the heaven" inspired them (the mandate of the sky, so to speak) - perhaps the heaven was revealing its nature in that choice of word. But that's not what theological Jews or Christians want - no, they're quite sure of what "God" is, even though nobody told them but their tradition. I'm not revising anything. I'm writing the words in their actual meaning. That those words really make firm theological beliefs fuzzy is a weakness of the theological beliefs - the words just are what they are. Hmmm...inasmuch as I grasp your point, perhaps we could use a simple passage as an example. As you know, translators have grappled with the proper translation of the names rendered as "Lord" and "God" for centuries. The primary names in Hebrew are: Jehovah (the tetragramatron YHVH, used 6,521 times, usually translated as LORD), Adonai (used 335 times, ), and Elohim (used 2,601 times, usually rendered as gods or god or God) and their singular/plural word forms. This is good short summary: Rabbinic Judaism describes seven names which are so holy that, once written, should not be erased: YHWH and six others which can be categorized as titles are El ("God"), Eloah ("God"), Elohim ("Gods"), Shaddai (“Almighty"), Ehyeh ("I Will Be"), and Tzevaot ("[of] Hosts"). I suggest you review that Wiki page for these 7 unerasable names of God as well as the other names used for God in Hebrew scripture, the leading one of this secondary rank of names for God being Adon/Adonai (as I understand it). But enough all the different names for God in the OT and about translation principles like formal equivalence (the name for the translation method you would like to use with word-for-word translation). Let's proceed to a well-known concrete example, just one single verse we can translate. Let's use Deuteronomy 10:17. It's very familiar and contains a number of these names used in ancient Israel which we translate as LORD, or Lord, or God, or The Almighty, etc. Since these names are all found in a single verse, we don't have to worry that the meanings or usage drifted over the centuries. If they're all in one verse, they had to make sense to any literate Jews back when they were written, published on scrolls, and recited in synagogue. Here is a list of various translations of the verse that I got from e-Sword, including a few Catholic versions like Vulgate and Jubilee bible along with the Bishop's, Geneva, KJV-1611, KJV (1769), KJV with Strong's numbers, and a few modern literal translations like LITV and MKJV. Notice that if you hover your mouse over the Strong's numbers, a tooltip will appear to tell you which Hebrew word is being used when the word "God" or "LORD" or "Lord" (YHVH, Elohim, EL). You can verify the Strong's numbers at any bible website; I included them here for convenience. If you really like translations that strive for accuracy and consistency in names and terms across the entire bible, LITV and Jubilee have that as their goal. They try to make the words self-defining by context. The results are mixed IMO. I included the CEV just for humor because it's so stupid, as are all the paraphrase bibles.
Given that He Exists (or He Lives), he is powers of powers, leader of leaders, the power, the great, the courageous and the feared one, he will not lift up face and he will not take bribe. That's how I would view that, from the Hebrew. YHWH = He Exists or He Lives or He Is - to exist, to be, and to live are one single verb in Hebrew - take your pick. Elohiym = Powers El = Power Adonai = "lord", which is just the archaic form of "leader". The name of God missing in this is El Elyon - the Power of Powers - the Most High of Powers, the Highest Power. El Elyon - the Most High - is Jesus' God and Father.
I'm not sure the Vicomte bible will be a big seller. Kind of lacks literary style, not punchy enough. And no poetic meter or vivid imagery. I'm not trying to be overly critical. It's just a bit flat in reading it. Some capitalization would help. I would probably have used Almighty for EL but that is kinda nitpicking. I'm doubt that's the worst translation around - for that look at the paraphrase bibles - but it isn't memorable or especially accurate, at least in my understanding. A great translation teaches something and says it in a memorable way. I think that is a prime measure of the merits of a translation of scripture. I'm sure you see my point. Returning to where this began, I'm not sure you could use this ensample (example in modern terms) of names of God to translate word-for-word the entire Old Testament. Other passages would get very very ragged, I think. That's the problem with formal equivalence translations. Especially when dealing with a collection of OT books written in multiple languages (Hebrew, Koine Greek) spanning 500 years or more. I'm not complaining, I could do no better. And, of course, we haven't even begun to deal with all the other names for God, gods of foreign nations, etc. If a translation method cannot deal with all the names given for God in a book of various scriptures, that translation method doesn't have a lot of merit IMO. I thought you might enjoy observing the development of English translations over time. Too bad I don't have a ready source for Tyndale's bible, the real granddaddy of English vernaculars. But the Bishop's is close enough. The Geneva uses most of the same renderings which were familiar to English readers from the Bishop's and the Tyndale. And the KJV borrowed many of the same readings, often infusing them with more literary style as well as some poetic meter which aided memorization greatly. There's a reason that no one memorizes and quotes bible verses from the modern bibles. They have no meter unless they're just stealing readings from the older Tyndale-based bibles. So they can fuss all they want over basing modern translations on the supposedly superior Nestle-Aland Greek text (based on Vaticanus/Sinaiticus) instead of the Textus Receptus. But if they just steal the old familiar readings from the KJV, then what good are their supposed superior underlying Greek manuscripts? It's just a scam to sell new copyrighted bibles like NIV. Don't get me started on just how scammy these modern bible companies are and how greedy. It's a truly dismal story. I did like seeing the Orthodox Jewish Bible though. I might have to examine it more fully in other passages. It might be considerably more accurate and give a better sense of the original text to English readers. In translation, some things just can't be properly translated and you have to see a near-representation to read it. And the OJB is a bit punchy in style and might even be suitable to memorize. It has a certain punchiness to it. Believe it or not but punchiness, style and meter are vital attributes in scripture translations. : ) BTW, if you were serious about machine translation, the public-domain software for the Babylon dictionary/translation project has been crafted into a proprietary software called Babylon. About $130, Mac or PC. That is the kind of software that could do the sort of translation you have been talking about. Try it out online: https://translation.babylon-software.com/ Using BibleGateway's Leningrad Codex, I fed Deuteronomy 10:17 to the online version of Babylon and got this: Well, it's about what you expect from such translation software. I think you could impose more rules on the $130 version and really make it work much better but I haven't actually used Babylon in some years so I may be overestimating it a little. But just for using the free generic online version, that rendering isn't that bad. I think the Hebrew they're using as their dictionary is modern Israeli Masoretic, not a dictionary of ancient Hebrew. So you could probably do a lot better with the retail Babylon.
It is accurate. That's the point. It precisely says what the words mean. And it does so consistently. It's flat and uninteresting, but there are no games played with "LORD" versus YHWH - two different words that mean different things. Where the precision matters is only in certain places, such as where God explicitly tells Isaiah that he creates evil. This matches, of course, God's threats in other places, such as throughout his warnings given to Amos, and it matches the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil" - that word - Ra - but it contradicts a psalm that says God does not do evil. Similarly that word "Kill", as in "You shall not kill". The efforts to turn that word into "murder", thereby allowing killing by authorities to do things people like - or killing in war. Translators decide that in most places "ratsaq" is "kill", but in others, it's murder. Nope. One word. God creates evil, that is very clear. God made everything. And God commanded men not to kill, and only generally authorized men to shed men's blood in payment for the shedding of blood. Then, in Israel (only) God imposed the death penalty for various offenses, including Sabbath breaking, but these are not laws for the whole world, just for Israel under the covenant of Sinai. Those precisions are very precious when it comes to combatting theologies that have been devised to change the words to allow men to do what men want to do. Nowhere is it more important than in the notion that men can decide on laws, and then appoint some men to kill other men if they will not obey their laws. All of that killing done to enforce authority violates God's commandment against killing. There is no "law enforcement exception". Paradoxically, then, charity is actually MANDATORY, but compliance with human law is what is voluntary. Men sin if they DON'T give to the poor - and they sin in a way that offends God to the point of sending those who don't into outer darkness - but men sin if they kill in enforcement of law, or in war to seize territory - there is no "government exception" to the law against killing - organized war is mass murder on an organized scale, and those who obey orders and kill are candidates for the lake of fire. These two facts from the text, when translated mechanically and without changing the words around, are directly opposite what Christians teach themselves, and explain most of the evil that befalls the Christian world. We do not understand that we are COMMANDED to give or lend (at zero interest) our excess money to relieve poverty, but that we are FORBIDDEN from enforcing our civil laws with deadly force. That "charity" is compelled but that obedience to human law is voluntary is what God actually says - or the implication of it - and it is the diametric opposite of what humans want. That is why, in Israel, they appointed a King - so they could wage war and the stronger could dominate the weak - and so they would not be dependent on God for defense and harvests. Given just how offensive God's way really is to the Christian mind, of course any exacting translation will evoke rejection. The Quakers - with their nonviolence and their insistence on unanimity before imposing any rule - are actually the only religion on earth that obeys God. And that's why they're also the one that hasn't killed anybody - despite having existed in the 1600s, and the one that led to the abolition of slavery, equal rights for women, conscientious objection, the single price theory. BECAUSE they are God's people, in the sense that they're the only ones who ACTUALLY OBEY HIM on the most fundamental rule: NOBODY (including the King and the Army) is permitted by God to kill ANYBODY, except in direct self-defense against immediate violence. I suppose the Jains of India are in the same place. Anyway, the reason I don't bother to try to do anything comprehensive is that it would be oceans of work, to be ignored in general, and the fact the people ignore direct words of God carefully placed before them enrages me and makes me go nonlinear. And what good is that to me? Oceans of time wasted to be ignored or endlessly contradicted by ignoramuses who "like the old wine better"? I have better things to do with my time. Judaeo-Christian religion is dying IN GENERAL. (The REASON it is dying is because it dwells endlessly on what individuals feel and want and social structures and rituals, and does not address the cardinal problems of humanity: poverty and violence - and that is because Christians have chosen to believe in a God who lets them do the POLAR OPPOSITE with regards to violence and charity from what the REAL God said to do. OF COURSE, therefore, Christianity will wilt and die: it's not real. It's not true. Jesus is the Son of God, and he said to do certain things. God has a rule of violence that Christians ignore. God set up the world as an economic entity without scarcity, but the fall imposed scarcity, and that imposes HEAVY burdens on humanity. God set up his laws for Israel explicitly to ELIMINATE human suffering from want - but it comes at the heavy price (to men's egos) of there being NO king, NO legislature, and NO human authority at all in the formation of laws - just the execution of judicial judgment on those who break God's laws...without, even, discretion in the judges: God gave them the prescription judgments they must deliver. And God even gave the Urim and Thummim to consult him in those cases where the facts could not be determined. Thus, in Israel there would be no scarcity, because all land and all produce and all people were accounted for under the laws of God, including who must be given to by whom in the event of misfortune. And there would be no abuse of law because men were completely stripped of their ability to make any law whatever. They could only execute the laws God set, without changing them. No place was left to human opinion, and there was, effectively, no source of human voluntary power in the system. Thus did God create a system that would lake poverty or abuse, by eliminating the human ego from the governance of men. For once, Christians who want to use God's ISRAELITE law to go after, say, the gays, will be happy to proclaim "WE'RE NOT ISRAELITES!" and thus we CAN determine our laws, and enforce them as we place. Yes, except that the law against shedding blood was given to NOAH and his sons after the Flood, so that denial of the right to kill/inflict violence (except in defense or punishment of a violent attacker) is NOT the law of YHWH for Israel, but of Elohiym for the entire world. Sorry, Christians, you were ALWAYS WRONG when you executed anybody for heresy, homosexuality, apostasy, witchcraft or anything BUT killing. I do the mechanical translation for the insights it gives me, and to have things to converse with God about, so that he can show me insights into how he has done things. When the hieroglyphs in which Genesis was originally carved are read, the revelation is mind blowing. Something simple like the word "El" - the first appearance of "God" - is an ox head picture, and the sound of it "EL" is the same picture (Eh, or Ah), and L - lamed - a shepherd's crook picture. So, the word "powers" or "mighty one" - the first "name" of God, is, phonetically spelled: Lord Shepherd. The Lord is MY shepherd indeed! People like what they like. I'm not going to change them. They're contentious. I've given up on trying to teach anybody anything from the Bible. If God wants to do that, he can. I delve into the words so I can talk to him about what he meant, what he wants of me. Sharing these things with the world just gets me bruised, angry and sullen. So what's the point?
I think you take this farther than scripture. The bible is full of kings and magistrates using force. Because that is what it takes to stop bandits, scofflaws, and criminal elements. It's very hard to believe that ancient Israel just suggested that people should follow their laws. They used force to keep the criminal element down. Look at how they dealt with their enemies, over and over. They were not shy about using violence to enforce the civil order, conquer the land, etc. And Israel under Rome in the time of Jesus certainly did not lack enforcement by Roman troops nor did the governor or the Sanhedrin shy away from using them at will. You prefer this as policy. That doesn't mean there was no law enforcement. Without armed enforcement, there is no rule of law. Because people don't obey the laws otherwise. The Jews in particular had to fear lawlessness as a serious threat to them historically. Major cities had thousands of crucified criminals along the roads leading to them, generally with the cooperation of the Sanhedrin and Jewish civilians. The poor in modern Western countries have more opportunity and more actual wealth than most ancient kings. The bible does not give much sympathy to those who refuse to help themselves or who refuse to work at all and prefer to spend their days drinking and doing drugs and leading immoral lives. So before you tell us all to sell all that we have to give to the poor, can you tell us finally just what "poor" means? What income level does that mean? Do we have to give them all houses and cars? Because we do do that with most of them. We scour the world and bring millions more poor people here and give them a lot of stuff too. If we can be faulted, it is that we neglect the native citizens in favor of constantly importing hordes of foreigners, something the Bible never commanded Israel to do.
I spoke there only of what God said, out of his mouth, as far as law goes. I consider well what he promised, and the effects of it. I consider the “Don’t shed man’s blood” commandment given to the Ark people, the legal interplay in the Torah, the fact of Urim and Thummin, such that Israel never HAD to get a judgment wrong, the urging of the prophets, Jesus’ words and conduct from “Render unto Caesar...”, through his “Enough!” at the last supper at the eagerness of tge Apostles to take up the swordshe said they would now need, to his admonition of ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’. I then look past him to the gross errors of Paul and Israel, wielding death to stop the progress of God, until Jesus himself blinded him and made him dependent on the people he was headed to Damascus to persecute. I look at the only two people who offended God enough in the new testament for God to kill outright in a pair of unambiguous open miracles (Ananias and Sapphira); then I look forward to the fatal sin of the Church, circa 381 AD, when it fired itself up with the wrongheaded zeal of “Error has no rights!” Augustine and started to use the state it dominated to execute people for heresy. And I conclude that, no, it’s not a question of what I “prefer”. It never was that.
I think you have conflict with others over the extent to which you value the relevance of Old Testament teachings to Christians. Just because Jesus and his disciples were Torah-observant Jews does not mean they absolutely forbade many matters of Jewish law to Christians. Abandoning circumcision for Gentile converts and even for newborns in Christian families. What is more fundamental to ancient Jewish law and culture than the absolute requirement that all males in that cult be circumcised? Yet there are no such requirements in Christianity. One of the most fundamental breaks between Christianity, the new vine grafted to the ancient vine of Israel, was the matter of tribal membership based on circumcision. That was the first and only significant attribute of any Jew, observant or not. Nothing that any ancient person could do would make them part of the Old Covenant with the God of Israel unless they were circumsized. Period, end of story. And dismiss entirely the notion that the God of Israel was the god of any other nation. He was not. Jewish scripture describes the god of Israel and the laws of circumsized observant Jews of the ancient era, not the god of all mankind and a universal set of laws applicable to all the ages of mankind on the earth. So I think you over-value the laws of Israel and would impose many Old Testament laws upon Christians that are not valid. I'm speaking in general terms, of reading the thrusts of your posts over the years. There is always a dividing line in theology over what elements, if any, are carried over from Judaism to Christianity. What elements of actual ancient Jewish law and religion still applied in the era of Jesus and how the New Covenant was established for Christians (non-observant Jews and Gentile converts). And many obscure Jewish customs were abolished for Gentile converts, among them circumcision, that most basic element of Jewish identity and subjection to the strictures of Jewish religion and custom. Now of course, you must recognize that I am implying that you are a Judaizer, that you seek to impose irrelevant Jewish laws on modern Christians for psychological or theological or philosophical or cultic reasons. But I don't think that is true. I think there is just a difference in where we place the dividing line between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. One of the key distinctions in this kind of disagreement is fully illustrated in Paul's victory over Peter before the council of Jerusalem, the ruling body of early Christianity, the pre-Vatican, over the issue of whether Gentiles or even Jewish Christians were required to be circumcised to become Christians. While there is a time to fight, there are many times when a fight is simply not worth it. I can remember Vance Havner once saying something like this: “Shucks, a hound dog can lick a skunk any day, but it just isn’t worth it.” A friend of mine used to say, “There are some things I would go to the wall for, but this isn’t one of them.” We should strive to avoid conflict, but there are those few times when we must engage in conflict in order to stand for what is essential and true. Acts 15 contains Luke’s account of two such instances, where conflict was necessary and where the gospel was advanced as a result of both disagreements. The first 35 verses describe the conflict which Paul and Barnabas had with certain men who had come to Antioch from Judea. The issue at hand was whether Gentile converts had to become Jewish proselytes in order to be saved. The outgrowth of this conflict was the first church council, which included some heated words but resulted in a very wise decision on the part of the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem. The remaining verses in Acts 15 describe the disagreement which arose between Paul and Barnabas. This was a matter which was settled privately and into which the church leaders were not drawn. We will concentrate in this lesson on the first conflict between Paul and Barnabas and some overly Jewish Christians, and the Jerusalem Council which met to settle the dispute. We will take note of the way in which the problem was handled and of the basis for the decision, as well as the decision of the Council and its impact. We will then seek to discern those principles which are inherent in our text and ponder their implications for the church today. The issue is that of the gospel itself. What did the gospel require of those who were Gentiles and who were converted to faith in Christ? The answer of Paul and Barnabas can be summed up in these words: There were certain unnamed men who had come down to Antioch from Judea who held to a very different “gospel,” a “gospel” which, in reality, was a false one.323Their “gospel” might be summed up in this fashion: Christianity is Jewish. To be saved, one must believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, but in order to be a part of this covenant community, Israel, one must become a proselyte, which is entered into by circumcision, which obligates the individual to keep the Law of Moses. Put differently, to these “Judaisers” salvation meant identifying not only with Christ but with the nation Israel. It meant placing oneself under the Mosaic Covenant and keeping the Laws of Moses, as defined by Judaism. We know for certain that these men who opposed Paul and Barnabas were from Judea. We can be sure they were Jews and that they had been and continued to be Pharisees (15:5). We are also told that these men were believers (15:5). We can infer, with some confidence, that these men either claimed or implied that their position represented the viewpoint of the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.324 It is probably safe to say that they taught with great confidence and an air of authority. When Paul and Barnabas opposed them, the sparks began to fly. Neither party was willing to budge. As wrong as these “Judaisers” were, they believed their position was biblical. A brief look at some Old Testament passages will show us the basis for their error, as well as an explanation of the error. Tracking the concept of circumcision through the Old Testament provides us with the reasons these Pharisees believed as they did and the reason they were wrong. Consider these two passages, the first found in Genesis 17 and the second in Exodus 12: Circumcision was no mere ritual—it was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. By being circumcised men bore witness to their faith in the God of Abraham and in His covenant with him and his descendants. Failure to circumcise his son nearly cost Moses his life (cf. Exodus 4:24-26). Failure or refusal to be circumcised placed one outside the covenant community. In order for one to participate in the Passover meal, one had to be circumcised. Aliens (Gentiles, for all practical purposes) could participate, but only after being circumcised. How easy it would be for a Jew to reason that these circumcision passages applied equally to those who wished salvation in Christ. Jesus was a Jew, the Jewish Messiah. If men wished to benefit in the blessings which God promised in and through the Messiah, they must identify themselves with Israel, with their covenants, and with the Mosaic commands. The fallacy of this Pharisaical position was that one did not have to identify with Israel to be saved, but only with Christ. Indeed, the baptism of John and later that of our Lord and His apostles was a public renouncing of Judaism as a system of works and an identification with Christ, on the basis of faith alone. Men turned their backs on legalistic Judaism and turned to Christ, who alone kept the law and bore its (death) penalty for sinners. The law could not save anyone; it could only condemn all men as sinners. Christ alone can save, and thus men had to choose between self-righteousness, based upon perfect obedience of the law, or Christ’s righteousness, a gift of God’s grace, through faith in the person and work of His Son, Jesus. The Judaisers viewed circumcision from these early texts in the Old Testament, but not from the other texts which showed the “true circumcision” to be an act of God, performed on men’s hearts and not on their physical flesh.325 Notice how this “spiritual” circumcision becomes more and more clear as the Old Testament progresses: 1 “If you will return, O Israel, return to me,” declares the Lord. “If you put your detestable idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, 2 and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, ‘As surely as the Lord lives,’ then the nations will be blessed by him and in him they will glory.” 3 This is what the Lord says to the men of Judah and to Jerusalem: “Break up your unplowed ground and do not sow among thorns. 4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done—burn with no one to quench it (Jeremiah 4:1-4, NIV). 23 This is what the Lord says: “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, 24 but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the Lord. 25 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh—26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, Moab and all who live in the desert in distant places. For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jeremiah 9:23-26, NIV). Though the term “circumcision” is not used, God’s promise of a new covenant and a new heart is surely referring to the “spiritual circumcision” which God will perform on men’s hearts, by faith, under a new covenant: “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31:31-33, NASB). So the differences between us probably amount more to differences on how we lay down the dividing lines between the Old Covenant for Israel and the New Covenant which led to non-observant Jews forming churches of their own and abandoning entirely the system of priestly sacrifices and the other strictures of the Jewish state, keeping in mind this was very much the era in which the Sandhedrin, a religious court, ruled in conjunction with a Roman governor (instead of a Jewish king). But, you say, what of the fundamentals, the Ten Commandments? Thou shall not kill, thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain, etc.? Do we then wish to enforce the Ten Commandments with the full force of the modern state? Should we punish those who fail to make the God of Israel their primary god and never take his name in vain? Should we forbid the use of all imagery as idolatry, the creation of graven images? How do we enforce the prohibition on coveting the property of your neighbor or his wife? The truth is that we are modern people and you have to have good reasons to insist absolutely on certain particulars of Old Testament laws as being applicable to modern Christians. If you don't enforce them all, why are you enforcing any of them? I think you have a lawyerly craving for underlying and consistent principles within an organized system of law. Otherwise, despite any contradictions or failures of the system, there is no underlying systemic principles to dispense justice. Without fundamental principles, there is no concept of real justice. I do find your insistence that it is forbidden to kill those who are breaking the laws. What do you think is actually required if dealing with a Las Vegas massacre situation? The police are supposed to knock at the door and request politely that the gunman stop shooting? Or they just wait until he runs out of bullets and needs more snacks? It is only the law if the modern state is willing to kill you or imprison you and pay your institutional upkeep if you break those laws. Some people don't stop shooting or harming others until the police just kill them. It surprises me that you don't understand this. I think you just don't like it. And it is an easy way to condemn the entire system on moral grounds. Not that the American justice system and its policing don't deserve to be condemned; they absolutely do. But not on the grounds that you argue repeatedly, like some mythical refusal to kill because the ancient laws of Israel forbids it. Anyway, that seems to me to be the fundamental difference in our positions. A lot of times, people disagree on the particulars but don't look at the fundamental positions that others hold, different views of the most important features of a policing and justice system. Trying to apply the laws of small nation of homogenous religious and cultural tribe, a society like ancient Israel, to modern America and to any modern Christian nation is an exercise in futility, doomed to fail before you even start. And even if we granted you the power to impose such a system, it is readily apparent it would fail when faced with hardened criminal gangs and those who refuse to obey authority when push comes to shove in the matter of police encountering a lawbreaker. I flagged a few others who might be interested. Sometimes we argue endlessly the particulars when the real issue is the unspoken fundamentals. At least it seems that way to me. There is often a fundamental disagreement in opinion that works out to a wider range of conflicts in opinion.
#206. To: Tooconservative (#204)
Circumcision was given to Abraham and his heirs, and the to the Hebrews of Sinai and theirs. So it never applied to you and me. (Note: the uncircumcised heir lost his right to inherit land in Israel, which was the only promise given to Abraham, and givennat Sinai. “Eternal life” is not part of the package offered either. The prohibition on shedding blood was given to Noah and his heirs, which is everybody on earth. Jesus said that killers earn the lake of fire at final judgment. As far as the invasion of Canaan goes, God gave that order to the Hebrews, only, conquering Canaan, only. It was not a permanent grant of authority for Jews to make war on whomever. They had a permanent right to defend the land God gave them, and were commanded to kill the Canaanites who did not flee (this was explicitly part of the divine judgment against the Canaanites. The exception to the “don’t kill” rule was limited in time and place, not an authorizatuion for Gentiles to wage wars of conquest.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhen you have the time, please give them all a look; I consider them a crash-course in Earth-Science Truth, Logic, and Reason.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#12)
I watched both. I find them, to varying degrees, flawed.
#21. To: Liberator (#20)
But to your premise, multiple civilizations for thousands of years had already presumed its shape not only to be Flat, but having a Dome or Firmament over it.
#22. To: Pinguinite, ALL (#21)
There's no reason ancients living thousands of years ago should be considered a scientific authority. If we don't consider them an authority when they said that all matter could be subcategorized into one of: Earth, Air, Fire & Water...
#23. To: Liberator (#22)
By whose authority, by what criteria IS the earth said to definitively be a "globe"? Because IF it's NASA, they and their credibility is already an ongoing problem and challenge. I
#24. To: Pinguinite (#23)
(Edited)
You really are big on that "whose authority?" question, and not just on religious topics.
#34. To: Liberator, Pinguinite, A K A Stone (#24)
Curious geometry:
The 747-400, the most common variant in service, has a high-subsonic cruise speed of Mach 0.85–0.855 (up to 570 mph or 920 km/h) with an intercontinental range of 7,260 nautical miles (8,350 statute miles or 13,450 km).[16]
So are 300-400 people per day just dying when their airliners crash into the sea and no one ever mentions it or NASA is somehow deceiving us all? Are you stating that these non-stop flights do actually fly over the United States at any time, day or night, and none of the passengers ever notice all those brightly-lit cities along the way or that huge continental land mass? There are 300-400 people flying these non-stop flights, generally on a daily basis and none of them ever notice they were flying over South America and North America on their way between Chile and Australia? Or is NASA just deceiving us all by getting Qantas to advertise these flights but they never actually take the passengers on those flights after they book them and pay for them? Boeing and Airbus take pride in manufacturing some of the world's longest range airliners. The Boeing 777-200LR - with a massive range of 17,395km - tops the list, followed by the Airbus A340-500 with a range of 16,670km.
#35. To: Liberator (#34)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
What would it take to convince you to believe that the world really is round?
#37. To: Tooconservative (#36)
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
It does not make me angry, in the slightest degree, that people are Flat Earthers. I just wonder what it would take to demonstrate to them that the Earth is, in fact, a spheroid.
#60. To: Pinguinite (#54)
There's too much faith in the world. Faith in things that are simply not true. Our capacity to believe things is grossly underestimated and unappreciated.
#68. To: A K A Stone, Liberator, Vicomte13, watchman, Tooconservative (#60)
For years and years you claimed to be a Christian. What is it that changed your mind? Or were you never really a Christian and you just said that because you were raised with Christians or something like that? Or you just said it without thinking about what it was? Seriously what changed your mind to believe in someone who suggests things to people while they are in a trance like state?
Or were you never really a Christian...
#84. To: Pinguinite (#68)
how do you/we qualify a "real Christian"?
#86. To: watchman (#84)
(Edited)
A Christian is a human being who is indwelt by God's Spirit.
That's basically it.
#87. To: Pinguinite (#86)
With that definition, under Newton, everyone is a Christian.
#90. To: watchman (#87)
In Christian belief, a person is born with a human spirit.
If, as you say, all souls are born of God, why does humanity experience such supreme emptiness? Contrariwise, why does the Christian experience such supreme fullness, peace and joy, that wells up from a source not of a persons making, but of God dwelling within?
#95. To: Pinguinite (#90)
Under Newton, we have an alternate and more sensible explanation for why we are uniquely valuable to God over any other biological life form on earth.
#97. To: watchman (#95)
So there is a God in the Newton model.
What role does God play in your incarnation into human form?
Is God central to your being? Or is God on the periphery, while you, your spirit, your being is central to your existence?
If God isn't central to your existence, but is relegated to some ancillary role while you reincarnate, can you really say that this meets the definition of "God"?
It seems that you have a self centered belief as opposed to a God centered belief.
#99. To: Pinguinite (#97)
The idea that we are nothing and God is everything, which is a frequent theme in Christianity, is inaccurate.
#102. To: watchman (#99)
God is infinitely more than the "The Source". And that is the kind of God you need and do not have...yet.
#103. To: Pinguinite (#102)
If you know God as you claim you do, can you honestly tell me that that is something God would actually do?
#109. To: watchman, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#103)
When God created the Universe, He created it with age built in. Adam and Eve were created to be in the prime of life. Everything God spoke into existence was created with the exact appearance of the age He so chose. Some theologians speculate that Adam would have been created to be the age that Christ was when He died on the cross.
#114. To: Tooconservative, watchman (#109)
And if Adam or Eve had ever refrained from eating those apples of nakedyness, then what use would mankind have for a savior like Jesus? They wouldn't need Jesus at all, being sinless. There would have been no sins to forgive, would there? No one to nail him to a cross, no one to accuse him, etc.
#131. To: Pinguinite (#114)
Reincarnation is not in the least bit a new theological concept.
a line about it being appointed to man "once to die"
#136. To: watchman (#131)
Which brings me to another question...where is this reincarnation taking you? The "spiritual lessons" you learn each time you reincarnate, do they have some end where you reach perfection? How many times must you repeat life before you get it right...then what?
Have you ever watched anyone die?
Do you not feel that the act of dying would be painful enough to learn almost every spiritual lesson there is to learn?
#137. To: Pinguinite (#136)
This woman comes across as very intelligent (she is a medical doctor) and speaks very objectively of her experience. Though I will add in all fairness that she considers her experience to be a validation of Christianity.
Eventually we progress to the point where further trips to the gymnasium called earth is of minimal value, and we stop incarnating,
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. 2Tim 3
#138. To: watchman, Pinguinite, Liberator (#137)
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. 2Tim 3
#150. To: Tooconservative (#138)
Even the bible says we're children of the devil and never want to do anything righteous.
#152. To: Vicomte13 (#150)
Yeah, it does. And given the transparent falsehood of that statement, it should be an alarm bell for everybody reading it that this book is full of hyperbole and colorful speech that CANNOT be taken literally word-for-word.
#155. To: Tooconservative (#152)
I was disappointed that no one read my mega-post
#158. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#155)
(Edited)
For the Old Testament, it would just be the red-letter/purple letter/golden letter words of Elohiym, YHWH, El Elyon etc. And there would be a synthesis of the legal texts, a "Restatement of the Torah" as it were, that would draw together the various legal strings and reduce it to the blackletter law, and the observation that every other thing that God said in the Old Testament, and most of what Jesus said in the new, went right back to those specific black-letter laws of YHWH,
If I published something, it would be called "Just God", and it would be my already existing "Harmony of the Gospels plus", with the mechanically, concordantly translated text, and the Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew right there.
#163. To: Tooconservative (#158)
Hey, the family's away so you don't have many social obligations at present...
#182. To: Vicomte13 (#163)
Because the word lists are clear, somebody can always simply mass replace one word with another, but the point is that the words are the words, and the translator doesn't get any choices - to make something theological.
Wiki: Names of God in Judaism The name of God most often used in the Hebrew Bible is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH). Owing to the Jewish tradition viewing the divine name as too sacred to be uttered it was replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai ("My Lord"), which was translated as Kyrios ("Lord") in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. It is frequently anglicized as Yahweh or Jehovah and written in most English editions of the Bible as "the LORD".
So how would you translate these various names of God from Hebrew, using word pictures like bright sky god in this one well-known verse, word for word, with or without capitals, with or without modern punctuation? How would you improve these various English translations? BTW, I included the Jubilee bible just for fun. And I added the Orthodox Jewish Bible translation at the very end, almost certainly more accurate than any of the others and pretty revealing of the underlying Hebrew language structure but...who would really want to read that as daily scripture readings? Not many people, I think. Deuteronomy 10:17 Bishops For the Lorde your God, is God of Gods, and Lorde of Lordes, a great God, a mightie and a terrible, whiche regardeth no mans person, nor taketh rewarde. Geneva For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lordes, a great God, mightie and terrible, which accepteth no persons nor taketh reward: KJV-1611 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward. KJV For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: KJV+ ForH3588 the LORDH3068 your GodH430 is GodH430 of gods,H430 and LordH113 of lords,H113 a greatH1419 God,H410 a mighty,H1368 and a terrible,H3372 whichH834 regardethH5375 notH3808 persons,H6440 norH3808 takethH3947 reward:H7810 LITV For Jehovah your God, He is the God of gods, and the Lord of lords; the great, the mighty, the fearful God who does not lift up faces, nor take a bribe. MKJV For Jehovah your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, the mighty, and a terrible God, who does not respect persons nor take a bribe. JUB For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, a great God, mighty, and terrible, who makes no exception of persons, nor takes a bribe; Latin quia Dominus Deus vester ipse est Deus deorum et Dominus dominantium Deus magnus et potens et terribilis qui personam non accipit nec munera CEV The LORD your God is more powerful than all other gods and lords, and his tremendous power is to be feared. His decisions are always fair, and you cannot bribe him to change his mind. ESV For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. OJB 17 For Hashem Eloheichem is Elohei HaElohim, and Adonei HaAdonim, HaEl HaGadol, HaGibbor v’HaNorah, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh shochad (bribe):
#183. To: Tooconservative (#182)
#192. To: Vicomte13 (#183)
Given that He Exists (or He Lives), he is powers of powers, leader of leaders, the power, the great, the courageous and the feared one, he will not lift up face and he will not take bribe.
That the LORD your God is the God of God, and the lords of God increase increase and terrible that no-bear and not take bribes.
#195. To: Tooconservative (#192)
#201. To: Vicomte13 (#195)
These two facts from the text, when translated mechanically and without changing the words around, are directly opposite what Christians teach themselves, and explain most of the evil that befalls the Christian world. We do not understand that we are COMMANDED to give or lend (at zero interest) our excess money to relieve poverty, but that we are FORBIDDEN from enforcing our civil laws with deadly force. That "charity" is compelled but that obedience to human law is voluntary is what God actually says - or the implication of it - and it is the diametric opposite of what humans want.
Thus, in Israel there would be no scarcity, because all land and all produce and all people were accounted for under the laws of God, including who must be given to by whom in the event of misfortune. And there would be no abuse of law because men were completely stripped of their ability to make any law whatever. They could only execute the laws God set, without changing them. No place was left to human opinion, and there was, effectively, no source of human voluntary power in the system. Thus did God create a system that would lake poverty or abuse, by eliminating the human ego from the governance of men.
#202. To: Tooconservative (#201)
#204. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Pinguinite, redleghunter (#202)
I consider well what he promised, and the effects of it. I consider the “Don’t shed man’s blood” commandment given to the Ark people, the legal interplay in the Torah, the fact of Urim and Thummin, such that Israel never HAD to get a judgment wrong, the urging of the prophets, Jesus’ words and conduct from “Render unto Caesar...”, through his “Enough!” at the last supper at the eagerness of tge Apostles to take up the swordshe said they would now need, to his admonition of ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’.
Bible.org: The Jerusalem Council: The Gospel Defined and Defended (Acts 15:1-35) Introduction
The Issue, Its Advocates and Its Assumptions
The gospel requires nothing more than a personal faith in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, in the sinner’s place, resulting in the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and the certainty of eternal life. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.” 9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” … 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him. 23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen (Genesis 17:5-14, 22-25, NIV). 43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: “No foreigner is to eat of it. 44 Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, 45 but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it. 46 “It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. 47 The whole community of Israel must celebrate it. 48 “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it. 49 The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you” (Exodus 12:43-49, NIV). 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live (Deuteronomy 30:6, NIV).
Replies to Comment # 204.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 204.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]